The government has NO authority to abridge rights, period. It only has the authority to PROTECT the equal rights of all under its jurisdiction. YOU are the one responsible for PREVENTING harm to yourself. YOU are, as always, your own first line of defense, not government. Government’s job (and the Supremes said so) is to come in AFTER THE FACT and pick up the pieces. Then they place blame and punish the guilty. They CANNOT be “preemptive.” In First Amendment cases the courts call it “prior restraint” and outlaw it.
But that is not really an answer, because I have the right to enjoy my property and to be free from harm by others. Can the government act ahead of time to protect me from harm by others, or is their only constitutional authority to punish people who violate my rights?
Government’s job (and the Supremes said so) is to come in AFTER THE FACT and pick up the pieces
They said that government has no enforceable OBLIGATION to prevent harm to you by others. That's not the same as saying Government has no constitutional authority to prevent harm to you by others.
In First Amendment cases the courts call it “prior restraint” and outlaw it.
The court has ruled that if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you CAN be arrested and put in jail, even if nobody is hurt. That is just the type of prior restraint we are talking about here. The government will not put a police officer on your tail to make sure you never use drugs, but if they catch you they will prosecute you.
It is true the government can't generally make it illegal for you to speak, simply because they think you will say something that would violate the law.
To use the "wrong-way street" analogy, the government doesn't use "prior restraint" by preventing you from driving your car simply because you might drive the wrong way. But, they do have a law against driving the wrong way, and they will act with "prior restraint" by arresting you and throwing you in jail for driving the wrong way, even though you didn't hurt anybody.
Do you think that traffic laws are unconstitutional because they limit your freedom in order to protect me from potential harm, rather than simply punish you for actually harming me?
YOU are, as always, your own first line of defense, not government.
As a practical matter, yes, because the government can pass a law but they can't keep people from breaking that law. But that is different from government only passing laws that punish people for doing actual harm, rather than limiting activities with the potential for harm.
Whether the government can arrest someone for driving the wrong way down a 1-way street, when I am driving I need to be looking out for people going the wrong way, because the police aren't going to prevent people from driving the wrong way. But I am much safer because I know that people know that if they drive the wrong way, they will likely get caught and if so they will be prosecuted. If there was no threat, no law, I would be in much greater danger, and in fact if I managed to protect myself the people who put me in danger would not suffer any consequences.
I'm still not sure if you are opposed to all laws of prior restraint, or just the drug laws, and if not all laws, how you distinguish between the ones you oppose and the ones you support.
So, would you legalize drunk driving, and only make it a crime if the drunk driver actually caused an accident? Or is drunk driving dangerous enough to others that you are willing to impose governmental prior restraint by making it illegal to drive while drunk even if you don't hurt anybody?